What were you THINKING?

My own reading of Max’s posts over the years are that he’s extremely focused on a legal/definitional framework and views pretty much everything through that lens. It’s not that he doesn’t recognize the existence of ethics and morality separate from a legal framework, it’s just that for whatever reason he doesn’t place any importance on them. That’s concerning and has been for a very long time.

He’s very smart but seems to lack common sense. In Dungeons & Dragons terms he would have a high INT and low WIS. It’s not impossible for people to mature and grow out of this mindset, but I’ve never seen any indication for Max that he even thinks this is an issue. Troll might be a bit strong for him, but I think it definitely fits sometimes. Arguing that conservatives should be a protected class on the board? That doesn’t pass the laugh test.

He’s not smart. His affectations are seen as smart on this board because it conflates such anti-social behavior with intelligence, but he’s not smart.

Seconded.

He also can dig up some good citations and explanations for complicated topics, I think that’s where his reputation comes from. Especially on (and of course) legal topics.

But social intelligence seems really lacking. Like, non-existent. I’ve had to remind him from time to time, “This is what the perspective of a normal human being would be, Max.”

Per his dedicated Pit thread:

He’s proud of it. I won’t debate his intellect or lack thereof, but he’s aware that he has divergent morality. Which is why I don’t put much value on anything he says outside a verifiably factual post.

But we should take him back to his thread.

And is often very, very wrong in his conclusions. But it’s exhausting to argue every thread with him, so many don’t. I would accept nothing he argues in law to be true.

This is very good to know. And yes I should clarify when I described him as smart, it was mostly on his legal posts. I am a layman when it comes to legal matters, and I have to admit that his posts do come across as credible to me. But that may be my own ignorance of the law speaking.

Mentally I’ve always categorized him in my own mind on legal matters similarly to how I think of you or Moriarty. Sounds like I should stop doing that.

If he cites some legal decision, you can usually trust that it is an actual decision and has been cited correctly. You absolutely cannot trust that it will be applicable to the topic under discussion, or that he has any understanding of the ramifications of the decision.

His ATMB thread is a thing of nigh well 0.001%-ile autistic lack of self-awareness. Not an attitude I’ve ever expected him to put forth. Color me surprised and majorly dismayed.

He, like me, is willing to say: “well technically, blah blah blah” in defense of accuracy for accuracy’s sake that can seemingly shade into defense of evil. IMO correctness is the highest ideal and he seems to agree.

But in that whole flail in both SDMB threads (GD & ATMB) he lost the logical thread of truth before he began.

I’ve watched him vociferously argue with actual lawyers (which I am not, and for that reason always defer to their reasoning) on points where he was so wrong. I even pointed it out to him. He continues to do that.

^^^
This.

Unlike Max, I’m capable of changing my mind. And I now think Max is an idiot, albeit with a reasonable vocabulary.

For me it’s utility (which, being human, includes at least some consideration for empathy and sympathy). This isn’t to say correctness is at odds with utility—I’m not one of those “religion is the opiate of the masses”-type pseudo-intellectuals you so frequently encounter on anonymous message boards (although, perhaps ironically, I wouldn’t be shocked to learn Max is just such a self-congratulating quasi-elitist). Only that mere correctness is, by itself, nothing special.

Kierkegaard’s parable of a man escaped from a (in the parlance of his times) lunatic asylum comes to mind. The story goes that this poor, sick fellow, upon escaping from an asylum, considers that what got him locked up in the first place was always spouting fanciful nonsense, going on like a mad man—a raving lunatic—as it were. So, he reasons, if he is careful to only say true things going forward, he is sure to make good his escape: he’ll blend in with everyone else. After some thought, he seizes upon the idea of tying a ball on the end of a string to the end of a stick. He then walks about, carrying the stick over his shoulder such that the ball will swing, like a pendulum, and strike him on the rear with every step. Being struck by such a round object (as balls tend to be) will in turn remind him that the Earth, too, is round, and so every time he feels the ball on his rear, he will announce “The Earth is round!” It is true, is it not?

And yet, after just one afternoon of shuffling about town, bearing a stick with a ball on the end of a string, with the ball striking him on the ass with every step and so greeting everyone he encounters with shouts of “the Earth is round!”… wouldn’t you know it? They figure him for a mad man and lock him up in the lunatic asylum, right back where he came from. The poor guy just can’t catch a break!

All that to say, merely being correct about things is, to my mind, trivial. In fact, that’s pretty much the definition of trivial, with all its negative connotations for being information that is, at best, merely correct, but hardly useful.

And so, I don’t give two shits if what Max says is correct if, in doing that, the only facts he can muster are those that would, to the extent they are oft-repeated by a certain segment of the population, seem calculated to dehumanize others and deprive them of their basic rights, their human dignity.

Which is even more odd because despite all the pedantry, he’s so very often incorrect.

At least if he were correct more often, the officious jerkishness masquerading as pedantry might be tolerated or even appreciated (Bricker comes to mind here for some reason). But alas

The thing is that he picks his sides beforehand, then seeks out the best sources that comply with his viewpoint.

IMHO, all that needs to be said about Max is in that ATMB thread that is now up to 92 posts with his continuing goading. Reminds me of an AI chatbot. Not ChatGPT, actually, which is quite congenial, but more like the early version of Bing chat, the one that if you talked to it long enough would start to get hostile and eventually advise you to divorce your wife.

Max is almost pathologically analytical, not nearly as bright as he thinks he is, and in a disagreement, just won’t let it go. I understand he’s fairly young compared to many of us old farts, so maybe there’s hope that he’ll grow out of it, along with his fascination for “conservatism” as the only true and righteous path to salvation.

To be clear, I think Max is a useful poster. All sorts of different opinions make this place interesting. He just needs to be a little less intractably intense.

Wow–I posted almost exactly the same thing in his dedicated thread, a day later, without having seen what you wrote here. Great minds and all!

What’s up with Czarcasm persistently asking about how sex can fail?

Surely whatever else he is, he’s Lawful, not Chaotic. I mean, he ‘talks’ like a lawbook come to life.

My analysis matches yours @I_Love_Me_Vol.I, in the post prior to the quoted one, I also lambasted him as an epitome of lawful evil, the section you quoted back was his response.

Either way, he’s a prideful, arrogant, and morally empty individual, and if you swing by his dedicated Pit thread, many people are bringing up just a few of his more painful moral failings to remind people who don’t want to go through the full thread again.